No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Judicial Specialization and Deference in Asylum Cases on the U.S. Courts of Appeals
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 November 2023
Abstract
Many look to the federal courts as an avenue of control of the growing administrative state. Some advocate the creation of specialized federal courts of appeals in areas such as immigration and social security. Yet, little is known about whether repeat exposure to specific types of cases enables federal judges to overcome doctrines of deference and whether such an effect would be policy-neutral. Gathering a sample of over 4000 cases decided by the U.S. Courts of Appeals between 2002 and 2017, we demonstrate that exposure to asylum cases over time emboldens federal judges to challenge administrative asylum decisions, asserting their personal policy preferences. The effect is particularly strong when the legal issue should prompt deference based on bureaucratic expertise. These findings not only address important questions raised by bureaucracy and court scholars but also inform a salient public debate concerning the proper treatment of those seeking refuge within our borders.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association
References
REFERENCES
Anderson, J. Jonas. 2018. “Court Capture.” Boston College Law Review 59 (5): 1543 –94.Google Scholar
Anker, Deborah E. 2016. Law of Asylum in the United States. Eagan, MN: Thomson Reuters.Google Scholar
Aschenbrenner, Kate. 2012. “Discretionary (in)Justice: The Exercise of Discretion in Claims for Asylum.” University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 45 (3): 595–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baird, Vanessa A. 2007. Answering the Call of the Court: How Justices and Litigants Set the Supreme Court Agenda. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Balla, Steven J. 1998. “Administrative Procedures and Political Control of the Bureaucracy.” American Political Science Review 92 (3): 663–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barak, Aharon. 2008. The Judge in a Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Barnett, Kent. 2016. “Against Administrative Judges.” University of California, Davis Law Review 49 (5): 1643–718.Google Scholar
Barnett, Kent, Boyd, Christina L., and Walker, Christopher J.. 2018. “The Politics of Invoking Chevron Deference.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 15 (3): 597–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Brandon. 2011. “Choices in Context: How Case-Level Factors Influence the Magnitude of Ideological Voting on the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Politics Research 39 (1): 142–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 2009. “Probing the Effects of Judicial Specialization.” Duke Law Journal 58 (7): 1667–84.Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 2010. “Judicialization and the Adjudication of Immigration of Immigration Cases.” Duke Law Journal 59 (8): 1501–61.Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 2011. Specializing the Courts. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baron, Kevin. 2019. Presidential Privilege and the Freedom of Information Act. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Bonica, Adam, and Sen, Maya. 2017. “A Common-Space Scaling of the American Judiciary and Legal Profession.” Political Analysis 25 (1): 114–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caballero, Juan P. 2020. “An Inconsistent Chevron Standard: Redefining Chevron Deference in Immigration Law.” Loyola University Chicago Law Journal 52 (1): 179–224.Google Scholar
Chand, Daniel E, and Dean Schreckhise, William. 2020. “Independence in Administrative Adjudications: When and why Agency Judges Are Subject to Deference and Influence.” Administration and Society 52 (2): 171–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, Edward K. 2008. “The Myth of the Generalist Judge.” Stanford Law Review 61: 519–72.Google Scholar
Childress, Steven Allen, and Davis, Martha S.. 2010. Federal Standards of Review, 4th edition. New Providence, NJ: LexisNexis.Google Scholar
Cichowski, Rachel. 2007. The European Court and Civil Society: Litigation, Mobilization and Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinton, Joshua D., Lewis, David E., and Selin, Jennifer L. 2014. “Influencing the Bureaucracy: The Irony of Congressional Oversight.” American Journal of Political Science 58 (2): 387–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Elizabeth F. 2020. Illegal: How America’s Lawless Immigration Regime Threatens Us All. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Collopy, Dree K. 2015. AILA’s Asylum Primer: A Practical Guide to U.S. Asylum Law and Procedure, 7th edition. Washington, DC: AILA Publications.Google Scholar
Eskridge, William N., and Baer, Lauren. 2008. “The Continuum of Deference: Supreme Court Treatment of Agency Statutory Interpretations from Chevron to Hamdan.” The Georgetown Law Journal 96: 1083–226.Google Scholar
Galanter, Marc. 1974. “Why the “Haves” Come out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change.” Law and Society Review 9 (1): 95–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garner, Bryan A. 2019. Black’s Law Dictionary, 11th edition. Eagan, MN: Thomson Reuters.Google Scholar
Giles, Michael W., Hettinger, Virginia A., and Peppers, Todd. 2001. “Picking Federal Judges: A Note on Policy and Partisan Selection Agendas.” Political Research Quarterly 54 (3): 623–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goelzhauser, Greg, Kassow, Benjamin J., and Rice, Douglas. 2021. “Measuring Supreme Court Complexity.” Journal of Law Economics and Organization 38 (1): 92–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guthrie, Chris, Rachlinski, Jeffrey J., and Wistrich, Andrew J.. 2009. “The ‘Hidden Judiciary:’ An Empirical Examination of Executive Branch Justice.” Duke Law Journal 58: 1477–530.Google Scholar
Hamlin, Rebecca. 2014. Let Me Be a Refugee: Administrative Justice and the Politics of Asylum in the United States, Canada, and Australia. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamburger, Philip. 2014. Is Administrative Law Unlawful? Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamburger, Philip. 2016. “Chevron Bias.” The George Washington Law Review 84 (5): 1187–251.Google Scholar
Hettinger, Virginia A., Lindquist, Stefanie, and Martinek, Wendy. 2006. Judging on a Collegial Court. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Howard, Nicholas O., and Hughes, David A.. 2022. “Revisiting Senatorial Courtesy and the Selection of Judges to the U.S. Courts of Appeals.” Political Research Quarterly 75 (1): 61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphries, Martha Ann, and Songer, Donald R.. 1999. “Law and Politics in Judicial Oversight of Federal Administrative Agencies.” The Journal of Politics 61 (1): 207–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Gbemende E. 2019. “Adjudicating Executive Privilege: Federal Administrative Agencies and Deliberative Process Privilege Claims in US District Courts.” Law and Society Review 53 (3): 823–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagan, Michael, Gill, Rebecca, and Marouf, Fatma. 2018. “Invisible Adjudication in the U.S. Courts of Appeals.” The Georgetown Law Journal 106: 683–720.Google Scholar
Kanstroom, Daniel. 1997. “Surrounding the Hole in the Doughnut: Discretion and Deference in U.S. Immigration Law.” Immigration and Nationality Law Review 18: 137–252.Google Scholar
Kerr, Orin S. 1998. “Shedding Light on Chevron: An Empirical Study of the Chevron Doctrine in the U.S. Courts of Appeals.” Yale Journal on Regulation 15: 1–60.Google Scholar
Knight, Stephen M. 2006. “Shielded from Review: The Questionable Birth and Development of the Asylum Standard of Review under Elias-Zacarias.” Georgetown Immigration Law Journal 20: 133–53.Google Scholar
Law, David S. 2005. “Strategic Judicial Lawmaking: Ideology, Publication, and Asylum Law in the Ninth Circuit.” University of Cincinnati Law Review 73: 817–66.Google Scholar
Law, Anna O. 2010. The Immigration Battle in American Courts. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law, Anna O. 2011. “The Ninth Circuit’s Internal Adjudicative Procedures and Their Effect on Pro Se and Asylum Appeals.” Georgetown Immigration Law Journal 25 (3): 647–80.Google Scholar
Levy, Richard E. 1990. “Social Security Disability Determinations: Recommendations for Reform.” BYU Law Review 1990: 461–544.Google Scholar
Lowande, Kenneth. 2018. “Who Polices the Administrative State?” American Political Science Review 112 (4): 874–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCubbins, Mathew D., Noll, Roger G., and Weingast, Barry R.. 1987. “Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 3 (2): 243–77.Google Scholar
Miles, Thomas J., and Sunstein, Cass R.. 2008. “The Real World of Arbitrariness Review.” University of Chicago Law Review 75: 761–814.Google Scholar
Miller, Banks, and Curry, Brett. 2009. “Expertise, Experience, and Ideology on Specialized Courts: The Case of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.” Law & Society Review 43 (4): 839–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Banks, and Curry, Brett. 2013. “Experts Judging Experts: The Role of Expertise in Reviewing Agency Decision Making.” Law & Social Inquiry 38 (1): 55–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Banks, and Curry, Brett. 2015. “Judicial Specialization and Ideological Decision Making in the US Courts of Appeals.” Law & Social Inquiry 40 (1): 29–50.Google Scholar
Miller, Banks, and Curry, Brett. 2017. “Small Group Dynamics, Ideology, and Decision Making on the U.S. Courts of Appeals.” Law & Policy 39 (1): 48–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Banks, Camp Keith, Linda, and Holmes, Jennifer S.. 2015. Immigration Judges and U.S. Asylum Policy. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Gary J. 1992. Managerial Dilemmas: The Political Economy of Hierarchy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Gary J. 2005. “The Political Evolution of Principal-Agent Models.” Annual Review of Political Science 8: 203–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moe, Terry. 1984. “The New Economics of Organization.” American Journal of Political Science 28 (4): 739–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moyer, Laura P., and Haire, Susan B.. 2015. Diversity Matters: Judicial Policymaking in the U.S. Court of Appeals. Virginia: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Peters, Amanda J. 2009. “The Meaning, Measure, and Misuse of Standards of Review.” Lewis and Clark Law Review 13: 233–77.Google Scholar
Pierce, Richard J. 2011. “What Do the Studies of Judicial Review of Agency Actions Mean?” Administrative Law Review 63: 77–98.Google Scholar
Posner, Eric A., and Vermeule, Adrian. 2010. The Executive Unbound: After the Madisonian Republic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Postell, Joseph. 2017. Bureaucracy in America: The Administrative State’s Challenge to Constitutional Government. Columbia: University of Missouri Press.Google Scholar
Ramji-Nogales, Jaya, Schoenholtz, Andrew I., and Schrag, Philip G.. 2009. Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication and Proposals for Reform. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Randazzo, Kirk A., Waterman, Richard W., and Fine, Jeffrey A.. 2006. “Checking the Federal Courts: The Impact of Congressional Statutes on Judicial Behavior.” Journal of Politics 68 (4): 1006–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randazzo, Kirk A. 2008. “Statutory Constraint on the Seventh Circuit: Examining Congressional Influence.” Southern Illinois University Law Journal 32: 683–98.Google Scholar
Rubenstein, David S. 2007. “Putting the Immigration Rule of Lenity in its Proper Place: A Tool of Last Resort after Chevron.” Administrative Law Review 59 (3): 479–519.Google Scholar
Schuck, Peter H., and Elliot, E. Donald. 1990. “To the Chevron Station: An Empirical Study of Federal Administrative Law.” Duke Law Journal 1990: 984–1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slocum, Brian G.. 2003. “The Immigration Rule of Lenity and Chevron Deference.” Georgetown Immigration Journal 17: 515–614.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R. 1991. “The Circuit Courts of Appeals.” In The American Courts: A Critical Assessment, eds. Gates, John B. and Johnson, Charles A., 35–59. Washington: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Spence, Michael, and Zeckhauser, Richard. 1971. “Insurance, Information, and Individual Action.” The American Economic Review 61 (2): 380–7.Google Scholar
Stobb, Maureen, and Kennedy, Joshua. 2023. “Replication Data for: Judicial Specialization and Deference in Asylum Cases on the U.S. Courts of Appeals.” Harvard Dataverse. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/PZHUFO.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verkuil, Paul R. 2002. “An Outcomes Analysis of Scope of Review Standards.” William and Mary Law Review 44 (2): 679–735.Google Scholar
Verkuil, Paul R., and Lubbers., Jeffrey S. 2003. “Alternative Approaches to Judicial Review of Social Security Disability Cases.” Administrative Law Review 55 (4): 731–85.Google Scholar
Waterman, Richard W., and Meier, Kenneth J.. 1998. “Principal-Agent Models: An Expansion?” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 8 (2): 173–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westerland, Chad. 2009. “The Consequences of Immigration Reform for the US Courts of Appeals.” Working Paper, SSRN.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Margaret S., and Law, Anna O.. 2010. “Understanding Judicial Decision Making in Immigration Cases at the U.S. Courts of Appeals.” Justice System Journal 33 (1): 97–119.Google Scholar
Wofford, Claire. 2018. “Says Who? Case Participants and Legal Doctrine in the U.S. Supreme Court.” Journal of Political Science 46 (1): 35–65.Google Scholar
Zorn, Christopher. 2006. “Comparing GEE and ‘Robust’ Standard Errors for Conditionally Dependent Data.” Political Research Quarterly 59 (3): 329–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stobb and Kennedy supplementary material
Stobb and Kennedy supplementary material
PDF
358.1 KB
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.